บอนด์ยีลด์สหรัฐฯ พุ่งสูงสุดรอบ 19 ปี! เฟดคงดอกเบี้ย ตลาดแตกตื่น สงครามตะวันออกกลางซ้ำเติม

Imagine this, please. Suppose a patient goes to see a doctor.

"Uh-huh."

"Uh, the doctor examined the symptoms and said, 'The condition is worrying, but I won't prescribe medication right now. Let's wait and see.'"

"Hmm, just wait and see, really?"

"Yes, exactly like that. And what happened was, that patient walked out of the clinic and went straight to the pharmacy to decide to buy the strongest medicine to treat themselves, going all out."

"Oh my! So, they couldn't wait anymore and decided to handle it themselves, is that right?"

"Exactly. And this simulation I just described is precisely what's happening right now, hot off the press, in the global financial market landscape this week."

"Ah, that's very interesting."

"Well, when the US Federal Reserve, or what we call the Fed, refused to implement decisive policies, uh, the market decided to take matters into its own hands, ahead of the Fed, and pushed borrowing costs to a 19-year high."

"That's a very accurate reflection of reality. It's a situation of severe conflict, isn't it?"

"Mmm-hmm."

"So, when the central bank steps on the brake, but the market mechanism accelerates in the opposite direction. This kind of action sends shockwaves throughout the entire economic system."

"Indeed. That's why we welcome you to this in-depth analysis. Today, we have an important mission to clarify the, uh, tensions that have arisen."

"Yes, it's a very hot topic."

"The tension between the inflation control goals of Jerome Powell, the current Fed chair, and the strong backlash from the financial markets."

"Ah-ha. And what sources of information do we have to discuss today?"

"Oh, today we have it all. We will process information from the statements of the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, from July 29, 2026."

"Mmm."

"Combined with in-depth reports from world-renowned news agencies like Reuters, Bloomberg, The Guardian, and also analysis from leading financial institutions like the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York."

"Wow, that's a lot of information."

"Yes. So, let's dive in and see why the latest stance from the Fed's leader has caused such market turmoil. Shall we start with the FOMC meeting results?"

"Certainly. Let's start with the meeting results."

"The resolution was that the Fed kept the policy interest rate at 3.50 - 3.75%."

"Ah-ha. Kept the interest rate."

"Yes. And Fed Chair Jerome Powell came out and spoke with a very stern demeanor, saying that the Fed is committed to bringing inflation down to its target and will not hesitate to act."

"That sounds like a very firm statement."

"Yes, but what caused the market to panic was his refusal to provide what's called Forward Guidance, or, uh, the advance guidance that the Fed has been providing for decades."

"Ah, this is the big issue. Removing the Forward Guidance tool at this time is a very significant change in communication rules."

"Is it that important?"

"Diane Swonk, a former Fed economist for 18 years, and now the Chief Global Economist at Citigroup."

"Wow, 18 years of experience at the Fed is no small feat."

"Yes. She pointed out a very interesting connection. Swonk believes the Fed is trying to signal through its words, something like, 'I am a hawkish hawk, trust me.'"

"Uh, hawkish means those who favor tight monetary policy, focused on controlling inflation, right?"

"Correct. Hawkish, or hawks, are those ready to raise interest rates to fight inflation."

"Ah-ha."

"But the problem is, investors today don't just want rhetoric. They want a clear roadmap."

"Oh, so just talking isn't enough; they need to see a plan?"

"Yes. For the Fed to say it's committed to fighting inflation but refuse to say how or when is like driving a car on a dark night and suddenly the driver turns off the headlights."

"Oh my, turning off the headlights while driving at night?"

"Yes. And the passengers, which in this case are the financial markets, are bound to feel uneasy, naturally."

"If I were them, I'd be complaining too. Just sitting there, and the driver turns off the lights. Uh, what's behind this choice by Powell to turn off the headlights, when he surely knows the market hates uncertainty the most?"

"It's like this. Swonk analyzes that it's a consequence of the political pressure Powell is facing."

"Politics is involved again."

"Undeniably. He has to walk a fine line between two sides. On one side is the White House and the political faction that wants to ease monetary policy."

"To stimulate the economy before an election, something like that?"

"Yes, or to reduce the government's own debt burden. While on the other side are the real-world inflation figures that are stubbornly refusing to come down easily."

"So, the Fed chose to remain silent and not make any advance commitments?"

"Ah-ha. It might be a strategy to buy time, to avoid direct confrontation with the political faction, while still maintaining the stance of being the rule-setter."

"That sounds familiar. Like a strict teacher who threatens a pop quiz in class without warning, but then never actually gives one. Now, the students, who are the financial markets, are starting to distrust and no longer listen to the teacher."

"That's a very vivid comparison. The students are no longer afraid of the teacher."

"But it seems this time-buying strategy hasn't just made the market uneasy. Because if we look at the meeting minutes, there's a division within the Fed's own meeting room."

"Ah, the dissenting vote, right?"

"Yes. There were three committee members: Beth Hamm, Neel Kashkari, and Lorie Logan, who voted against the majority."

"Mmm, voted against the Fed chair's decision."

"Yes. They supported an immediate interest rate hike of 0.25%."

"How significant is a three-vote dissent in one go?"

"Oh, it's a high-level warning signal."

"That much?"

"Yes. Because normally, the FOMC committee emphasizes consensus to build public confidence."

"So, they need to appear united, is that it?"

"Yes. A dissent of three votes reflects serious concerns within the organization that the Fed is moving too slowly, or what we call 'behind the curve,' in dealing with inflation."

"Ah, slow again."

"But, you know, what caused more panic in the market than the dissenting vote was something else."

"Mmm, there's something else?"

"Yes. It was Fed Chair Powell dropping a hint about forming a committee of 15 experts to review the 2% inflation target by the end of 2026."

"Wait a minute, reviewing the inflation target? Talking about that at this time sounds quite out of place."

"That's exactly what the market is worried about."

"Because if we look at the Personal Consumption Expenditures, or PCE, figures for June, they were still at 3.7%."

"Yes."

"And the core PCE, or underlying inflation, was at 3.3%, both of which are still much higher than the 2% target."

"Considerably higher."

"Talking about reviewing the target when the original target hasn't been met yet is like a football team whose striker can't score. Instead of going back to practice shooting, they walk up to the referee and ask to widen the goalposts in the middle of the game."

"Oh my, that's a painful but spot-on analogy for the situation."

"Moving the goalposts, is it? Yes. And in the world of central banking, what's more important than interest rates is the credibility of the central bank."

"Credibility is a matter of life and death, isn't it?"

"Yes. When investors start to suspect that the Fed is about to move the goalposts to make it easier to declare victory over inflation, the trust built over a long time can crumble in an instant."

"Mmm, because if they agree to move the target to 3%, they might move it to 4% in the future as well."

"Exactly. Who can guarantee that? And when credibility is lost, the market learns that they can no longer place their hopes of controlling inflation with the Fed."

"So, the market has to find ways to protect itself."

"Precisely. They have to take care of themselves at this juncture."

"And this self-protection by the market is precisely what led to the phenomenon we're seeing in the US Treasury bond market. The market has effectively voted no confidence in the Fed."

"Ah-ha. Voted no."

"Yes. And it has resulted in a situation that the industry calls a severe 'twist steepener.'"

"Ah, this twist steepener phenomenon is the highlight."

"Data from Bloomberg indicates that the yield on 2-year Treasury bonds has fallen to 4.30%."

"Mmm, the short-term yield decreased."

"Yes. But long-term yields have surged in the opposite direction, with the 10-year reaching 4.73% and the 30-year soaring past 5.2%."

"5.2%! That's the highest in 19 years, since 2007."

"Wow, that's a long time. I'd like you to elaborate on this mechanism. Why does the Fed's inaction on interest rates cause long-term yields to skyrocket?"

"Certainly. This mechanism needs to be explained through the fundamental relationship between bond prices and yields. Prices and yields always move in opposite directions, right?"

"Yes. Suppose we hold a 30-year bond. It's a contract that provides a fixed interest rate over the long term, correct?"

"Ah-ha."

"But when the market assesses that the Fed is about to give in to inflation, or might intentionally allow inflation to remain high, the fixed interest payments from that bond will lose purchasing power and become almost worthless in the future."

"Oh, because inflation erodes the value of the interest."

"Exactly. When institutional investors realize this, panic sets in, and they sell off long-term bonds heavily."

"A desperate sell-off."

"Yes. With massive selling pressure, bond prices in the market plummet. And according to financial mathematics, when bond prices fall, yields must rise in the opposite direction to attract new buyers."

"Mmm, I understand. This is why the figure reached 5.2%."

"Yes. Meanwhile, the 2-year yield has fallen because the market has already recognized that the Fed is unlikely to raise policy rates anytime soon."

"Ah, I see. So, the market is saying, 'If you're not going to manage inflation, then I'll charge you more for the risk of lending you money long-term.'"

"Ah-ha, exactly. Charge more risk to account for inflation."

"Fed Chair Powell himself said something in the press conference that the market participants are learning to play the ball, not the referee."

"'Play the ball and not the referee.' A classic line."

"It sounds like he's implicitly admitting that the market has already ignored the referee, the Fed, and is focusing on economic reality, or the ball itself."

"Yes. It's an admission that reflects a deep structural shift."

"How so?"

"The fact that the market is pushing up long-term borrowing costs means the market is implicitly acting as the entity raising interest rates to slow down the economy on behalf of the Fed."

"Oh my, the market is raising interest rates itself."

"Yes. But the impact of this mechanism is severe."

"Mmm. How far does it reach?"

"As soon as the yields on the 10-year and 30-year bonds surged, the stock market experienced a massive sell-off and correction. The S&P 500 fell 1.5%, the Dow Jones dropped 2.2%, and the Nasdaq fell 2.1%."

"Ooh, a widespread decline."

"It doesn't end there. More importantly, it has caused mortgage rates to skyrocket as well."

"Oh, this directly affects ordinary people. Those looking to buy a home must be sweating."

"Exactly. That means the cost of living and the cost of doing business in the real economy are being severely squeezed by the capital market mechanism alone."

"Mmm. If we look at it superficially, the Fed might feel relieved that the market is working for them."

"Ah-ha. Relieved that they don't have to exert effort themselves."

"Yes. The cost of capital is tightening without them having to announce interest rate hikes and face political backlash."

"That's true."

"But, uh, the point to consider further is, if the market is acting on its own like this, it means they must see a very large inflation fire in the future, hence the rush to sell bonds. Are there any macroeconomic factors that are making the market so fearful?"

"Certainly. If we look at macroeconomic data, we'll find variables beyond control, or what are called 'macro wild cards,' that are forming a large storm."

"A large storm? What is it related to?"

"The main reason for the bond market's fear of second-round inflation pressures is due to external factors."

"External factors?"

"Yes. Especially geopolitical crises. I must inform the listeners here that we are merely reporting the facts from neutral news sources without taking sides in any conflict."

"Yes, we are citing news facts."

"Ah-ha. If we refer to reports from Reuters regarding the situation in the Middle East, we see escalating tensions. There have been joint air operations between the US and Saudi Arabia in Iraq. Mmm, attacks have begun."

"Yes. And Iran's missile counter-attack followed by a new wave of US military strikes in Iran."

"The situation sounds very tense."

"Yes. And from an economic perspective, what follows such conflicts is an unavoidable supply shock."

"Ah, supply shock. And its results are clearly reflected in the price of crude oil in the global market, right?"

"Precisely."

"Because data indicates that WTI crude oil surged by 6.9% to $84.73 per barrel."

"Yes, a sharp increase."

"While Brent crude oil prices have also surpassed $90. When energy becomes more expensive, the cost of everything in the economic system must also increase, right?"

"Exactly. Transportation is expensive, production is expensive, everything is expensive."

"And what's interesting is that this is happening at a time when demand in some sectors of the economy is skyrocketing, isn't it?"

"Correct. This is the conflict that makes policymakers very concerned. Ah."

"How is it conflicting?"

"While the world is facing an energy supply shock, we are seeing extremely hot demand in the business sector. Especially the figures from the second quarter, which indicate that business equipment spending grew by 15.2%."

"Wow, 15.2%! Double-digit growth. What kind of businesses are these?"

"It's a result of massive investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure, the AI boom."

"Ah, the AI trend."

"Yes. The Fed might be able to use interest rates to reduce demand to some extent. But the harsh reality is that monetary policy cannot conjure more crude oil into the market. The Fed cannot solve the bottlenecks in the global supply chain."

"Mmm-hmm, true. It's like the Fed is standing there holding a small fire extinguisher, trying to put out the inflation fire by just keeping interest rates steady."

"Ah-ha. I can picture it."

"While global factors like soaring oil prices and massive investments in the AI industry are like continuously pouring large canisters of fuel onto the fire."

"Yes. So the fire burns even brighter."

"It's no wonder the market mechanism became so panicked and had to rush to sell bonds to protect itself."

"That's a very clear summary. When you combine the fragile energy infrastructure, the unstoppable technology investment, and, most importantly, the central bank's lack of clarity, uh."

"Mmm."

"The market had no choice. It had to re-evaluate all risks, and that's the origin of the historic bond sell-off we are witnessing."

"Oh my, when you put all the pieces together, it's a very large and frightening picture."

"Yes, truly concerning."

"Based on all the data we've analyzed and connected today, the clearest conclusion for the tensions that have arisen must be a crisis of faith."

"Crisis of faith. That term is spot on."

"When the Fed loses credibility due to its ambiguous stance and signals that seem to want to change the inflation target rules, the financial markets choose to protect themselves."

"Ah-ha. By selling off long-term bonds."

"Yes. Pushing borrowing costs to a new 19-year high. And this has a domino effect."

"A chain reaction."

"Yes. It's dragging the stock market into a severe correction, and more importantly, it's pushing up mortgage interest rates, which directly impacts everyone's wallets in the real world."

"Yes. In the end, ordinary people like us are the ones who bear the full brunt."

"But, uh, before we conclude our discussion today, one thought has come to mind that I think challenges the traditional beliefs of the financial world."

"Mmm. What thought?"

"If the situation continues in this manner, if tools like Forward Guidance, which central banks worldwide have used to communicate and guide markets for decades, are permanently abolished."

"Ah-ah-ha."

"And we allow market mechanisms to decide, to sell off or push up interest rates freely, as in this instance."

"Mmm, that's worth thinking about."

"The question is, in the future, will the real power to control the direction of the global economy still lie with central banks, with just a few committee members voting?"

"Or."

"Or has that power actually slipped into the hands of the capital markets, driven by the decisions of millions of investors, completely?"

"Oh my, that's a profound and chilling perspective at the same time. So, who is controlling whom?"

"That's precisely the issue that is worth pondering and closely watching going forward. For this in-depth analysis, I must bid you farewell. Goodbye."

"Goodbye."